C3:

The Canonized Cardinal Continuum

The consistency of the incompleteness

completes the inconsistency of the continuum.

By Gavin Wince
Copyright 12/27/2009

Introduction
During my sophomore year of High School, I had a mathematical experience that
changed my life and perspective on reality. Grant Philips of Reo Mesa High School in Oxnard,
California began to teach us about imaginary numbers in his Algebra class.

He drew a line across the chalkboard, called it the real number line, and then did something
remarkable: he pointed the chalk on the chalkboard perpendicularly away from the real number
line demonstrating the orientation of how the imaginary number line exists in relation to the real
number line. Something inside me clicked as I fell in love with abstract mathematics at age 16.
After dropping out of High School during the fall of my junior year and admitting my self
into the local Community College that spring, an experience in another math class mutated my
deep interests into willful action. During a college Algebra class, the instructor began to explain
the definitions of the various types of numbers discussing the subject in reference to figure 1-12
in our class textbook.

Gustafson & Frisk, College Algebra 4th Edition, Brooks/Cole, 1990, p.66, Chapter 1: Basic Concepts; Figure 1-12

It appeared that something was missing from the right-hand corner of this figure that, if included,
would complete the picture so to speak. I began looking at mathematic as missing something that
specifically had to do with what made imaginary numbers different from real, rational numbers
different from irrational, and whatever it is that is missing being different from everything else.

Table of Contents
1.0- C3: the Canonized Cardinal Continuum.1
Introduction..2
Table of Contents.3
1.1- An Infinite Series with an Infinitesimal Final Term.....4
1.2- Degrees of Infinity5
1.3- Infinitesimals as Reciprocals for Degrees of Infinity...8
1.4- Roots of Infinites and Infinitesimals...10
1.5- Arithmetical Treatments of Infinites and Infinitesimals.11
1.6- Range of Value....14
1.7- Perambulation..16
1.8- Reciprocating Perambulations.17
1.9- Arithmetical Treatments of Perambulations....17
1.10- Subambulation...18
1.11- Ambulation.20
1.12- Central Core Values and Super Order....22
1.13- Defining the Reciprocal of Zero.....24
1.14- Un-ordinals and the Non-set...24
1.15- Counting the Continuum using Powersets......................26
1.16- Limits..35
2.0- C3 and the Conventional Approach............................................36
2.1- Antithetical Proof.........................................................37
2.2- Compatibility of C3 with Non-Standard Analysis.......................................................41
2.3- Standard Parts Method in Differentiation....................................................................41
2.4- Standard Parts Method in Integration...42
2.5- Failure of the Standard Parts Method ......45
2.6- Determining the Indeterminate Forms.46
2.7- C3 and Differentiation..48
2.8- C3 and Integration49

Bibliography....52

1.1- An Infinite Series with an Infinitesimal Final Term

Let there be a sequence with infinite terms;
x1 , x2 , x3 , , xn
Each term of the sequence is the sum of all subsequent term(s) added to the next
consecutive term as a series, where each term in the series is some product of 1/2n. The
first term in x1 corresponds to the first term of the series.
x1 = 1/21 = 1/2 = 0.5
The 1st and 2nd terms in x2 correspond to the first and second terms of the series.
x2 = 1/21 + 1/22 = 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75
Each term of the sequence x1 , x2 , x3 , , xn is a partial and finite sum such that each
consecutive term of a series is half the value of the previous term and each term of the
sequence is closer to 1.0 than the previous term of the sequence.
x1 = 1/21 = 1/2 = 0.5
x2 = 1/21 + 1/22 = 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75
x3 = 1/21 + 1/22 + 1/23 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 0.875
x4 = 1/21 + 1/22 + 1/23 + 1/24 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 = 0.9375
etc.
xn = 1.0

At the end or limit of the infinite sequence, the final term of the sequence is 1.0
xn = x1 + (x2 - x1 ) + (x3 - x2 ) + + (xn - xn-1 ) = 1.0
xn = 1/21 + 1/22 + 1/23 + 1/24 + + 1/2n = 1.0
= 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + + 1/2n = 1.0

In this example we can see that as the number of finite sums of the sequence approaches
the limit infinity, the last term of the sequence equals one.
xn = 1.0

If we are going to assume that the last term of the sequence equals one, it can be deduced
that, prior to the last term in the sequence, some finite sum in the series occurs where:
xn-1 = 0.999
xn-1 = 1/21 + 1/22 + 1/23 + 1/24 + + 1/2n-1 = 0.999
Therefore, at the limit, the last term of the series of the last term of the sequence would be
the term, which, when added to the sum 0.999 equals 1.0
xn = x1 + (x2 - x1 ) + (x3 - x2 ) + + (xn - xn-1 ) = 1.0
= 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + + 1/2n = 1.0
= 0.999 + 1/2n = 1.0
= 0.999 + some infinitesimal = 1.0
Assuming that a finite number raised to the power of infinity is an infinite quantity, it is
deducible that the reciprocal is an infinitesimal quantity. Therefore, we will let the last
term in the series ( 1/2n where n is infinite) equal some infinitesimal quantity.
1/2n = (xn - xn-1) = (1.0 - 0.999) = some infinitesimal.

1.2- Degrees of Infinity

Take note that the inverse of the last term is 2n.
[1/2n ] -1 = 2n
Since 2n is the power set of n we will now raise the question whether or not the power set
of an infinite set is greater than or equal to the original set?
Either:
1/2 = 1/,

and

2 =

1/2 < 1/,

and

2 >

or:

Let there exist at least two degrees of infinity. The least degree of infinity is the set of all
countable numbers, say the set of all natural numbers:
{ 1, 2, 3, , n }
The greater degree is the continuum, or set of all countable and uncountable numbers.
C{

n}
5

The set of all countable numbers, or natural numbers, is a subset of the continuum.
Since the set of all natural numbers is a subset of the continuum, it is reasonable to
assume that the set of all natural numbers is less in degree of infinity than the set
containing the continuum.
However, it does not follow that the power set of the set of all natural numbers has the
same degree of infinity as the continuum, since this would leave only two degrees of
infinity. It might be more intuitive to assume that there are infinite degrees of infinity, as
there are infinite finite numbers, than to presume a finite degree of infiniteness. Why
would there be less degrees of infinity than number of finite numbers?
Let the set of all natural numbers be denoted as 0: the first infinite or cardinal number.
Let the next hypothesized cardinal number be denoted as 1. We will entertain the
possibility that 1 is a third degree of infiniteness and that there could be n degrees of
infiniteness.
The power set of the set of all natural numbers has one of the following three solutions:
1). The power set of 0 equals the set of all natural numbers:

2). The power set of 0 equals the set of the continuum:

3). The power set of 0 equals some intermediary infinite set that is greater than
the set of natural numbers but is less than the set of the continuum:
1 < C
To determine if the power set of the natural numbers is greater than or equal to the set of
the natural numbers, or if the power set of the natural numbers is the set of the
continuum, we will algebraically examine them in relation to one another.

Assuming that if:

1 C

and

1 < C

and that:

Either:
0 = 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = = C, and there really is only one degree of infinity,
or:
0 < 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < < C, and there are infinite degrees of infinity, with the
continuum being the greatest.
If we subtract (or add) a finite quantity with an infinite quantity, it can be shown that the
infinite quantity is still the same quantity. For instance, imagine a line that is infinitely
long. Assume it has a length the size of the set of all natural numbers.

If we were to subtract from the left side of this line, say five units, our line would start
with 6 and continue from there. We could still make a 1-1 correspondence between our
new line and the original line, such that 6 corresponds to 1, 7 corresponds to 2, 8
corresponds to 3, 9 corresponds to 4, etc.

Therefore it can be shown that both lines contain the same infinite units of numbers,
namely 0.

Also, raising the set of all natural numbers to the power of a finite number does not
increase the number of members of that set. For example, if we square the line and turn it
into a plane, we can see that though there is an added dimension through which quantities
can arise, we can still make a 1-1 correspondence between the plane and the original line.

Again, if we cube the original line, we can still make a 1-1 correspondence between the
three dimensions and the original line.

So, more or less, it can be argued that:

8

and,
(where n is a finite quantity)
However, the extreme difference between finite and infinite quantities is so vast that one
could not expect that an infinite raised to the power of a finite could yield the same
results as raising an infinite to an infinite power, such as:
= ? =
Similarly, it does not seem intuitive that the power set of an infinite set, such as the set of
all natural numbers, would have the same number of members as the original set when
even finite power sets contain more members than the original set itself. It is inherent to
the definition of what it is to be a power set that a power set contains more members than
the original set. Therefore, it also does not intuitively deduce that:

1.3- Infinitesimals as reciprocals for Degrees of Infinity

A deeper examination of attempting to algebraically define the relationship between
infinites and infinitesimals reveals something that serves as a resolution to the
aforementioned issue at hand.
Referring back to the infinite sequence of terms, we will assume:
1 0.999
1 = 0.9 + 0.1
1 = 0.99 + 0.01
1 = 0.999 + 0.001
1 = 0.9999 + 0.0001
etc.
1 = 0.999 + 1 ,

(where 1 is some infinitesimal quantity,

and 0.999 is some quantity infinitesimally
smaller than 1)

Let be substituted for this infinitesimal quantity 1 such that:

= 1
1 = 0.999 + 1
1 = (1- ) + ()

Let have the property of being a smallest possible quantity greater than zero, such
that:
1 / = ,

1 / = ,

= 1,

/ = 1,

/=1

Replacing for , let have the property of being a greatest possible quantity, so that:
1 / = ,

1 / = ,

= 1,

/ = 1,

/=1

To avoid the regular arguments which dismiss the consistency of the concept of
infinitesimals in mathematics, we will assume that is a set of infinitesimals such that
any conceived quantity smaller than and greater than 0 is a member and/or subset of .
{ 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , , n }

where n 0 and

n-1 > n

0 is some infinitesimal quantity whose value is the least lower bound of the set of
infinitesimals , and, at the limit, n is some infinitesimal quantity whose value is the
most lower bound of the set of infinitesimals .
{ 0 n }
We will assume that is a set of infinites or cardinal numbers such that any conceived
greatest possible quantity that is infinite and less than C, where C is the continuum, is a
member and/or subset of .
{ 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , , n }

where n < C *

and

n-1 < n

* C cannot be a member of the set because C

is the greatest of all sets and is a subset of C.
0 is the set of all natural numbers and 0 is some infinite quantity whose value is the least
upper bound of the set of infinites , and, at the limit, n is some infinite quantity whose
value is the most upper bound of the set of infinites .
{ 0 n }

where 0 { 1, 2, 3, 4, , n }

1.4- Roots of Infinites and Infinitesimals

Let and be extra-finite quantities that intermediate between the finites and the
infinites (), and between the finites and the infinitesimals ().
is the set of roots for 0.
{ 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , , n } where n 1

and

n-1 < n

Let the square root of 0 be some extra-finite quantity 1, where:

0 = 01 ,

1 = 01/2 ,

2 = 01/3,

etc.

10

 is the set of roots for 0.

{ 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , , n } where n 1

and

n-1 > n

Let the square root of 0 be some extra-finite quantity 1, where:

0 = 01 ,

1 = 01/2 ,

2 = 01/3,

etc.

Assuming that 0 through n are reciprocals of 0 through n for all and , we find:
1 / 0 = 0 ,

1 / 0 = 0 ,

0 0 = 1, 0 / 0 = 1,

0 / 0 = 1

1 / n = n ,

1 / n = n ,

n n = 1, n / n = 1,

n / n = 1
(see Appendix)

Though and are extra-finite, since they exist nearer to the infinites and infinitesimals
more than ordinary finite numbers and give that 0 = 0 and 0 = 0, we will assume:
0 0 = 1;

since 0 0 = 1

0 n = 0; since 0 1 = 0

0 0 0; since 0 0 0
0 n = 0; since 0 1

= 0

We will refer to the infinites, infinitesimals, and extra-finites as transfinite quantities

collectively speaking.
1.5- Arithmetical Treatments of Infinites and Infinitesimals
With a calculator, or a pen and much scratch paper, one can obtain the following results:
1 = 1
2 1.41
3 1.73
4 1.41
6 1.251
14 1.0208
30 1.000104
134 1.00000000456
If you carry out an excess of square roots upon any quantity, the results are all the same:
the quantity goes towards one plus some very small decimal number.

11

If one examines a graphic representation of exponential curves, it can be shown that any
quantity greater than zero, raised to the power of zero, equals one. Looking at the same
graph, it can be argued that any quantity greater than zero, raised to the power of a least
possible value greater than zero, equals one and some addition (or subtraction) of a very
small quantity.

It can be hypothesized that any finite quantity greater than one raised to the infinitesimal
root equals one plus some infinitesimal:

n = n = 1 +

where

n>1+
(see Appendix)

Assume:
n > n0 > n-,

where n is any finite number greater than 1,

n < n0 < n-,

where n is any finite number greater than 0 and less than 1.

12

Let:

n = n = 1+ ,

n0 = 1,

n = n- = 1- ,

when n > n0 > n-

and
1- = 0.999,

where 0.999 is the least number greater than 1.

It follow that either:

(a)

= 1 +

(b)

= + =

Before we solve for (a) or (b) we must first continue to define 0 and 0 algebraically.
Let:
0 + 0 = 20
0 + 0 + 0 = 30
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 40
etc.
0 + 0 + 0 ++ 0 = 0 = 1
Let:
0 0 = 02
0 0 0 = 03
0 0 0 0 = 04
etc.
0 0 0 0 = 0 = 1
Let:
0 + 0 = 2 0
0 + 0 + 0 = 3 0
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 4 0
etc.
0 + 0 + 0 ++ 0 = 0 0 = 02
Let:
0 0 = 02
0 0 0 = 03
0 0 0 0 = 04
etc.
0 0 0 0 = 0 = 1
(From here on, let be synonymous with 0.)
Dismissing (b) as the solution and choosing to go with (a), = 1 + , we find:

13

1.6- Range of Value

If we treat the equation = 1 + algebraically, we find:

= 1 +
= (1 + )

Substituting 0 for , if we attempt to factor out the equation

we find a
minimum, mean, and maximum range of solutions. These varying solutions are derived
by applying algebraic rules to the foregoing definitions of the infinites and infinitesimals.
(1 + 0) 0 = 1
(1 + 0) 1 = 1 + 0
(1 + 0) 2 = 1 + 2 0 + 02
(1 + 0) 3 = 1 + 3 0 + 3 02 + 03
(1 + 0) 4 = 1 + 4 0 + 6 02 + 4 03 + 04
etc.
Examining the terms in our series as it approaches 0, we discover that there are multiple
ways of factoring an answer. Examining the final terms of the sequence first running the
summation sequence in a reverse direction, opposite from usual, we can get:

In the same way that subtracting finite quantities from infinite quantities does not change
the overall quantity of the infinite, adding two infinitesimal does not seem to really
increase the value; you still have an infinitesimal quantity, such that:
20 0 .
Similarly, raising an infinitesimal to the power of a finite does not really change its value:
02 0.
Therefore the minimum solution is:
= 1 + { 0 + 0 + 0 +}
= 1 + some infinitesimal quantity > 0

14

If we recall that we have presumed the definition: 0 0 = 1, we can get a mean solution:
= 1 + { 0 + 0 + 0 +... }
= 1 + { 0 0 } = 1 + 1
=2
However, if we run the summation in the regular direction we find:
= 1 + 0 0 + 0 02 + 0 03 + 0 04 +

= 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +
= 0
Thus, for this equation, there is a minimum, mean, and maximum solution depending on
how you factor and run the summation of the terms generated.
Minimum:

= 1 + some infinitesimal quantity > 0

Mean:

=2

Maximum:

= 0

If it can be determined that a quantity is either infinite or infinitesimal, it can be shown

that when treated algebraically it exhibits a property of having a range of value rather
than a specific value. Therefore, if a quantity is infinite or infinitesimal in nature, and
that quantity exists over a range between a minimum (compressed) form and a maximum
(expanded) form, then the quantity perambulates on the continuum.
Compression of addition of initial infinitesimals yields an expanded initial infinitesimal:
where

is the expanded form of 0.

Expansion of addition of initial infinitesimals yields one:

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + = 1

Compressed form of the initial infinite set; the set of all natural numbers:
where 0 is { 1 ,2 ,3 ,4 , }

15

1.7- Perambulation
Infinite and/or infinitesimal quantities exhibit the property of perambulating along a
range of possible values; between a minimum compressed form and a maximum
expanded form depending upon how the infinite and/or infinitesimal quantities are treated
algebraically.
Therefore, the following states:

The equation
where

perambulates over the range of

and
is the minimum term, and
is the maximum term.

In other words, a finite number greater than one, less than two, when raised to the power
of 0 in compressed and expanded forms, perambulates between two plus the expanded
form of the initial infinitesimal and the compressed form of the set of all natural numbers.

erThTrehT, 0, the set of all natural numbers, is the initial infinite or cardinal number
whose quantity ranges (perambulates) between a compressed and expanded form.

We will let the power set of the compressed form of the initial infinite number be the
expanded form of the same, a finite number greater than or equal to two, when raised to
the power of the compressed form of 0, equals the expanded form of 0, and since each
consecutive infinite is dwarfed by the next in a similar way that finites are dwarfed by 0,
we will assume:

Thus, the expanded expression of 0 perambulates between the power set of 0

compressed and 0 compressed raised to the power of 0 compressed.

Therefore, we will redefine the powerset of the set of all natural number from:
into:
The powerset of the expanded form of the set of all natural numbers 0 is the compressed
form of the next consecutive infinite or cardinal number 1.

16

1.8- Reciprocating Perambulations

Maintaining a consistency with the algebraic relationships between expanded and
compressed forms of infinite and infinitesimal quantities, we find the following
expressions to be consistent:

1.9- Arithmetical Treatments of Perambulations

Treating these definitions algebraically, we get:

Given that the mean solution is:

We can also derive the solutions that:

17

Therefore we will assume:

1.10- Subambulation
Since, in both examples, it is not specified whether or not the 0 in ( 1 + 0 ) should be an
expression of a compressed or expanded form, and since
represents
the range between compressed and expanded forms of 0, we will assume:

Using a concept of sublet ambulations, denoted by a + or - sign, we can derive that:

18

(see Appendix)
This leads us into allowing for an endless progression and regression of subambulations
of each compressed and expanded form.

Let + or - denote an endless progression (+) or an endless regression (-) of sublet

perambulations (subambulations) where the maximum and minimum terms are expressed
as the progressively most upper-bound (+) or regressively least lower-bound (-)
expression of all possible subambulations.
(see Appendix)
Subambulations are derivable for all infinites, infinitesimals, and extra-finite quantities
such that they allow for an ordered accounting of the reciprocities between the infinites
and infinitesimals and the reciprocal relationships within the extra-finite quantities.*
*It must be noted that because of the infinite potential of diversity in the
ambulations of transfinite quantities, there exist algebraic expressions with
solutions that exist between the expressions we specifically need for our purposes
and that are not possible to solve for without difficultly in deriving needless
correct solutions. These are not indeterminate rather inconvenient.

Example:

19

In carrying out the permutations of subambulation, if we let subambulations that share the
same degrees of + and -, regardless of order of appearance (since we are dealing with
sets), we can say that they overlap and are the same subambulation. In doing so the order
of subambulation follows a Pascals triangle pattern where each level of subambulation
configures to corresponding levels of a Pascals triangle.
1.11- Ambulation
It has be shown that together both perambulation and subambulation maintain consistent
arithmetical treatments of infinites with infinitesimals having reciprocal relationships.
Perambulation and subambulation are dual aspects of ambulation, the variable range of
communicable values derived when treating infinites with infinitesimals algebraically.
The idea of perambulation arose from the binomial function (a + b)n, where a = 1, b = 0,
and n = 0, and the idea of subambulation follows the number sequence of Pascals
triangle. Thus both reveal an underlying pattern of consistency with conventional
arithmetic. Ambulation allow infinites and infinitesimals to be treated algebraically as
specific values using functions that equal sets of possible values where each member of
each set accounts for different specific ambulations and reciprocations thereof.

20

Equivalences can be derived between the greatest subambulation of a compressed

perambulation, the least subambulation of the expanded perambulation, and the initial
ambulating quantity.

The infinite relationships between the perambulations/subambulations of each infinite

and each infinitesimal is another degree to ambulation that shall be call an ensembulation.
An ordered sequence of ensembulations shall be called a compulation.
An ensembulation is the collective expression of some transfinite quantity whose value
ambulates over a range of possible expressions between a variety of degrees of
minimum/maximum compressed and minimum/maximum expanded forms.

21

A compulation is an ordered series of transfinite numbers ranging from an initial to a

final value where the range of quantities encompass an enembulation of ambulations;
such as the range from the least upper bound infinite 0 (the set of all natural numbers) to
the most upper bound infinite n (the power set least the set of the continuum)*.
*The continuum cannot be a member of the cardinal continuum
because the cardinal continuum is a subset of the continuum.

The gelatinous nature of C3 captures the essence of the continuum incorporating the
concept of ambulation through the definitions of perambulation, subambulation,
ensembulation, and compulation that later have applications in Non-Standard Analysis
and Infinitesimal Calculus. We can define the infinitesimals, finites, extra-finites,
infinites, and zero in terms of a continuum ranging from the minimum compressed form
of the continuum to the maximum expanded form of the same.
1.12- Central Core Values and Super Order
Central core values are terms that off-shoots from a ambulation of a transfinite number
that, when treated algebraically, exhibit mathematic logical consistency. A transfinite
term can be used algebraically if and only if the transfinite term is a central core value
and/or the origin of a particular ambulation such as the transfinites we have used in the
arithmetical treatments.
Not all ambulations of a transfinite quantity, when treated algebraically, easily exhibit
mathematic logical consistency. Though there exist derivable inexpressive algebraic
expressions as gaps in completeness, there is an order to this incompleteness that actually
serves for a particular kind of count-ability. Ambulation deflates the uncountable aloof
nature of transfinite quantities into being comprehensive ordered sequences. Though we
cannot account for each and every algebraic expression, we can account for the
inexpressive algebraic expressions by way of sets of super order.

22

Super order is an unintelligible interval of order which cannot be placed into a 1-1
correspondence with any countable set, such as the set of all natural numbers, and can
only be place in a correspondence with the infinite term whose power set is the
continuum (see section 2.0).
Referring to a cardinal continuum, we find an infinitude of infinitesimals, extra-finite,
and infinite numbers in both directions in 1-1 reciprocal relationships with each other
gapped by intervals of super order.

We also extended the cardinal continuum in another dimension of the reciprocal

relationships between the perambulations and subambulations of trans-finite numbers.

23

1.13- Defining the Reciprocal of Zero

However, this leaves us with an inevitable problem:
If we let the final term of set be equal to zero, and the final term of set is the
reciprocal of the final term of set , then what is the final term of set ?
In other words:
What is the solution to 1/0?

What is the reciprocal of zero?

The answer lies in the fact that as do the infinitesimals, the infinites regress and progress
indefinitely. It should follow that, given the indefiniteness concerning both infinite and
infinitesimal numbers, what ever is deduced at one end of the continuum should
correspond to what ever is deduced as the other end. So it logically follows that what
ever is at the end of one side of the continuum should have a reciprocal at the other end.
We already know that given the infinitude of both finite and transfinite numbers, all
numbers can be accounted for as having a reciprocal. This leave no other possible
number as being the reciprocal of zero other than zero itself. In some way, zero is at both
ends of the continuum, i.e. the continuum in all directions ends at zero.

Like the infinites and infinitesimals, we can induce the idea that zero ambulates with the
exception that zero ambulates the entire continuum to the extent that zero is the
continuum. This is not to say that there are two zeros, but rather that in two separate
ways, zero exists at both extreme ends of the continuum as one end. We will differentiate
zero on the infinitesimal end of the continuum from zero on the infinite end of the
continuum where 0c represents the compressed or common form of zero, and 0e
represents the expanded or infinite form of zero.

24

1.14- Un-ordinals and the Non-set

Let us assume for now:
0x0=0

1x0=0

0/1 = 0

0/0 = 1

1/0 = 0

n/0 = 0

0/n = 0

If we begin to play with the definitions algebraically, we quickly find some apparent
problems such as false equalities:
0/0 = 1
0/0 = 0 x 1/0 = 1
= 0x 0 =1
= 0
=1
0=1
Or even more simply by using substitution:
1/0 = 0
1

=0x0

Where n is any given number, we end up with the additional apparent problem of:
n/0 = 0
n

=0x0

When zero is treated algebraically, it can be used to derive any number or false equality.
What at first appears to be a contradiction becomes the key to the final part of the
solution to the continuum hypothesis. When put this into an ordered sequence, we get:
0/0 = 0 x 0 = 0
0/0 = 0 x 0 = 1
0/0 = 0 x 0 = 2
etc.
0/0 = 0 x 0 = n
Thus, the product of zero multiplied by itself and/or divided by itself derives any possible
number. Here, we come to a new concept of the set of un-ordinals: a non-set of
nonsensical false equalities and indeterminate forms that, as a background set of rejects
excluded from the continuum, serve as a collecting bin of mathematical impossibilities.
For every ordinal there is a continua of un-ordinals and there are no countable sets of unordinals. Let the set of un-ordinals be expressed existing as the non-set lying outside the

25

set of all numbers as though through a back (hidden) channel between the expanded
expression 0e and the compressed expression 0c:

The un-ordinals can be expressed through ordered sequences of false equalities. Recall:
0/0 = 0x0 = 0
0/0 = 0x0 = 1
0/0 = 0x0 = 2
0/0 = 0x0 = 3
etc.
Let this series be a subset of the un-ordinals. The number of un-ordinals is uncountable
and they exist outside the sets of the real, hyper-real, ordinal, et al. There are also false
equalities which can be placed into a 1-1 with these un-ordinals.
1+1 = 0
1+1 = 1
1+1 = 2
1+1 = 3

etc.
1+1 = n

0/0 = 0x0 = 0
0/0 = 0x0 = 1
0/0 = 0x0 = 2
0/0 = 0x0 = 3
0/0 = 0x0 = n

1+0 = 0
1+1 = 0
1+2 = 0
1+3 = 0

etc.
1+n = 0

0/0 = 0x0 = 0
0/0 = 0x0 = 1
0/0 = 0x0 = 2
0/0 = 0x0 = 3
0/0 = 0x0 = n

Un-ordinals expressed as nonsensicals or false equalities are solutions to equations that

are correct solution to incorrect equations and/or incorrect solutions to correct equation,
such that no other equation can give such solution, and no other solution exists for such
equation, yet it is not commutable between the equation and solution. These make up a
significant substructure of mathematical reality that can be sequenced as continua subsets
of the non-set, which later prove to be useful in determining the indeterminate forms.
1.15- Counting the Continuum using Power Sets
Starting out with the smallest possible member of set having an equivalence with 0c, we
will count the entire continuum from end to end, from zero to zero, we will proceed to
count through the entire continuum.

26

represents a point of inner-ambulation continuity where the least compressed

form of a transfinite number equals the least expanded form of the same. Thus, these
extreme subambulation are also equivalent to the initial:
.
represents two points of extra-ambulation continuity where the most
expanded form of an infinitesimal meets the most compressed form of the next.* A single
point can only be as small as the most lower bound infinitesimals greater than zero, but
an interval of infinitesimals can be reduced to zero.
________________________________________________________________________
*Infinitesimals are decimal numbers and as roots do not yield power sets where as
infinites as roots can yield power sets.

27

Therefore, it can be shown that the set , set of all infinitesimals, ambulates over a range
from the least lower bound infinitesimal set 0 to the most lower bound infinitesimal set
n; from the initial infinitesimal to the null (empty) set. Thus, the compressed or
common form of zero (null set) is a member of the set as its most lower bound member.

28

Since is the set of roots for 0, and given that 0 equals 0, it follows that:

can be used to account for the continuity between infinitesimal and finite numbers. It
is the set of intermediate quantities that range between the most upper bound of the
infinitesimals and that infinitesimal being raised to smaller and smaller roots.
Therefore, it becomes deducible that 0, which equals 0, when raise to an infinitesimal
enough root equals one; given that smaller and smaller decimal numbers, when raised to
smaller and smaller roots, yield finite numbers that are closer and closer to one.

29

Therefore, it can be shown that the set , set of all roots of 0, ambulates over a range
from the most upper bound infinitesimal 0 to one. Thus, 0 and one are both members
of the set .

30

Since is the set of roots for 0, and given that 0 equals 0 and that n in its expanded
form equals enT, it follows that:

can be used to account for the continuity between finite numbers and the infinites or
cardinal numbers. It is the set of intermediate quantities that range between the least
upper bound infinite number and that infinite number being raised to deeper and deeper
roots. It becomes deducible that 0 raise to an infinitesimal enough root equals one.
Thus, approached one from 0.

31

It can be shown that the set , set of all roots of 0, perambulates over a range from the
least upper bound infinite 0 to one. Therefore, 0 and one are both members of the set .

Finally, it can be shown that the set , set of all infinites or cardinal numbers,
perambulates as an ordered series over a range from the least upper bound infinite
number 0 to the most upper bound infinite number n. It becomes deducible that the
expanded or trans-infinite form of zero is the most upper bound infinite number, it is the
power set least the set of the continuum, and it is a member of the set .

32

Since
is the greatest set least its power set C, and since
is the greatest subset of
C, since C is the greatest set and has no power set, and since C is a power set, it follows
that the power set of the greatest set least the set of the continuum is the continuum.

33

Therefore, zero ambulates between a compressed common form and an expanded infinite
form. Zero as a whole, undivided, is the continuum.

The continuum in power set form ambulates between zero in its differentiated forms as
the compressed form of the continuum (Cc) and zero as a whole in its undifferentiated
form as the expanded form of the continuum (Ce).

It has been shown that , the set of all infinitesimals, ambulates between 0, the least
lower bound of the infinitesimals, and 0c, the compressed or common form of zero.
{ 0 0c }
Since is the set of all of the roots of 0 and given that 0 = 0,
ambulates between 0 and 1.
{ 0 1 }
Since is the set of all of the roots of 0 and given that 0 = 0,
ambulates between 0 and 1.
{ 0 1 }
It has been shown that , the set of all infinites or cardinal numbers, ambulates between
0, the least upper bound of the infinites, and 0e, the expanded or infinite form of zero.
{ 0 0e }
Finally, the continuum C, as a power set of its final term, ambulates between the
undifferentiated form (0) and the differentiated forms (0c, 0e) of zero. Zero, as a whole, is
the continuum.

34

1.16- Limits
We can see that the definitions found in calculus for either of the limits for f(n) = 1/n,
where n approaches zero or where n approaches infinity, would have to be changed to
account for these new treatments of infinites and infinitesimals.
Classical Calculus:

1/=0

1/0=

There is justification for questioning these classical definitions, and replacing them with:
C3 Calculus:

1/=

1/=

1/0=0

The consistency of the incompleteness completes the inconsistency of the continuum

verses the inconsistency of the completeness incompletes the consistency of the
continuum.
There is an obvious channel of pattern supporting C3 which is inherent to the interplay of
transfinite numbers through special algebraic rules such that communicable equations can
be derived to maintain the consistency of the structure of the argument for C3.

35

2.0- C3 and the Conventional Approach

The questions facing the C3 argument are:
1. Is the sequence {0c, ,, 1, , , 0e } really accountable for the continuum?
2. Is {0c, ,, 1, , , 0e} a masked sequence of the set of natural or real numbers?
3. Are the C3 algebraic treatments of zero, infinitesimals, and infinites sound?
4. Is C3 compatible with and/or resolve issues in Non-Standard Analysis?
C3 reasons well reworking the assumption:
into

and

The cardinal number 1 is not finite nor does it have the same cardinality as 0, and 1 has
cardinality strictly greater than 0, however, there is another way of treating 0 and 1 that
reveals more about the continuum and the accountability of numbers.
C3 is congruent with the assumption that the set of real numbers, R, is
= 1, however
ambulation opens another dimension to the accountability of infinite sets such as R and
allows for an infinitude of infinites greater than R to be counted. Right away, ambulation
diversifies the set R into R for more specific accountability:

A more uncountable set R*, the set of all hyper-real and transfinite numbers, has the
cardinality of n. R* < C because as a set, R* does not ambulate and does not contain the
differentiated forms of zero as limits. Ambulation can diversify R* into R** where:

36

The concept of ordinals is accounted for by adopting the use of ambulation with
transfinite numbers. The use of ordinals as position is implicitly compatible to C3. The
uncountable set 1, the set of all countable ordinal numbers, has a cardinality of 1. Since
it can be shown using the axiom of choice that it is the smallest uncountable cardinal
number (0 being the last set of countable numbers). The idea of a cardinal continuum
(0, 1, 2, , n), or infinite degrees of infinity, is deducible. Since it is arguable, using
C3, that though the cardinality of R is 1 and though 1 is uncountable, 1 C, and the
cardinality of the continuum should be shown to be significantly larger than the
cardinality of R. According to C3, the cardinality of the continuum C is the power set of
the last term 0e, which is infinitely greater than R. Using a reverse standard parts method,
finite numbers can be shown to be ordinals. C3 accounts for numeration from n, n-1,
n-1, ... , 2, 1, 0, , 1, 2, 3, , 0, 1, 2, , n etc. Since is the ordinal associated
with the set of natural numbers 0, and since 1 is associated with 1, the compressed
forms of 0 can be associated with the ordinals , +1, +2, (+ ), (+ + ), ,
( ), ( ), etc. and the expanded forms of the cardinal number 0 can be
associated with the ordinals , 0, etc., and 1 the set of all countable ordinals, can be
accounted for in C3 as 1. The sequence in C3 of 1, 2, , n accounts for the
uncountable ordinals 1, 2, 3, etc. and the set of all uncountable ordinals can be
expressed through the relationship of n to 0e.
(see Appendix)

2.1- Antithetical Proof

0e is the set of all numbers, C is the power set of 0e, and C contains a member (zero) that,
when in set form, accounts for members not found anywhere within the set 0e and are not
numbers in any ordinary sense, namely the un-ordinals.
It can easily be deduced that 0 in the un-differentiated form is an un-ordinal, given that
treating zero algebraically can derive any value.
00 = 0(1-1)

00 = 0/1 x 1/0 = 0/0 = 0

00 = 0(1) x 0(-1)

00 = 0/1 x 1/0 = 0/0 = 1

00 = 0/1 x 1/0

00 = 0/1 x 1/0 = 0/0 = 2

00 = 0/1 x 1/0 = 0/0

00 = 0/1 x 1/0 = 0/0 = 3

00 = 0/1 x 1/0 = 0/0 = 1

00 = 0/1 x 1/0 = 0/0 = n

If we recall, there is a continua of un-ordinals that exists for every ordinal. We can see
this by the fact that for every correct equality, there is a continua of incorrect equalities.

37

Thus, the set of all ordinals and un-ordinals, namely C, would look something like this:

What becomes apparent is that even though the set of un-ordinals is uncountable, at first,
it appears to possibly be greater than the set of ordinals. A Cantor diagonal style proof
can be used to show that both sets are uncountable and have the same cardinality or
alternatively that the set of all un-ordinals has a cardinality less than that of the set of all
ordinals. Either way, the cardinality of the powerset of the set of all ordinals is the
continuum C. Therefore, within C3, no set larger than C has been conceived where in
addition C is also a member thereof (set of all sets as a member of itself).
(see Appendix)

If we take the complete product of the set of all ordinals by multiply all members of the
set of all ordinals together with their reciprocal members, we get a complete product of 1.
The reason is that for every member of the set of all ordinals there exists a reciprocal
member such that when they are all multiplied together, the complete product is 1.

38

Therefore, the set of all ordinals has a cardinality of 0e and a complete product of 1.
If we consider the set of all un-ordinals, we find that though a continua of un-ordinals
exists for every ordinal, the complete product of each continua is the reciprocal value of
the ordinal it extends from. Therefore, it would be the case that the complete product of
the set of all un-ordinals is also 1. From this we can deduce that both the set of all
ordinals and the set of all un-ordinals have the same cardinality, namely 0e. However, it
turns out that something has not been considered and has been omitted from both sets;
that being zero in the undifferentiated form.
Let zero differentiated as reciprocal compressed and expanded forms existing at both
extremes of the continuum exist within the set of all ordinals and let zero undifferentiated
without a reciprocal, as its own reciprocal, exist within the non-set of all un-ordinals.
Clearly, if there is a candidate for the non-set of un-ordinals zero would be it.
Undifferentiated zero is an odd un-ordinal because it has no reciprocal. It becomes even
ordinals when its compressed and expanded forms are differentiated into a reciprocal
relationship.
Undifferentiated: 1/0 = 0

Differentiated:

1/0e = 0c

1/0c = 0e

Therefore, since all the un-ordinals have a reciprocal other than zero, the complete
product of the non-set of all un-ordinals, with the undifferentiated zero as a member, is
zero. So the difference between the cardinality of the set of ordinals and the set of unordinals is zero; in other words, nothing. Inadvertently, this also can be used to show that
there is no greater cardinality than C.
Agains, since un-ordinals are meaningless outside the use of un-ordinals to establish the
continuum as having the greatest possible cardinality, we have neither conceived of a set
of all sets that contains itself as a member nor have we conceived a cardinality greater
than C.
Zero perambulates the continuum in two ways:
1. Zero, whose product is any point or interval along the continuum, exists at both
extreme ends of the continuum.
2. Zero is the complete product of all ordinals and un-ordinals.
The continuum is the full perambulation of zero by its proliferation of number.
Proliferating away from zero are the very numbers that, when culminated together in the
form of a continuum, consolidate into the value of zero. Zero comes together and makes
number, and numbers comes together and makes zero.

39

There are three forms of zero:

0c - Compressed or common form- approaching zero from the infinitesimal side

0e - Expanded or infinite form- approaching zero from the infinite side
0 - Complex Product (super continuity)- undifferentiated zero.
0e is the set of all ordinals, C is the power set of 0e and C is the set of all ordinals and the
non-set of all un-ordinals.
0 {1,2,3,4}- the natural numbers 0; the initial infinite (cardinal) number, least upper
bound of the infinites. None of the members of this set ambulate though
the set as a whole does.
R {0, , }- the real numbers R (or 1), where R ranges from 0 to n and 0 to n;
n = 1, n = 1; 0 0, 0 0; 0 > 0, 0 < 0
R {0, , }- the ambulating real numbers R ranging from 0 to n and 0 to n;
n = 1, n = 1;
0 = 0, 0 = 0;
0 0, 0 0
R*{0, , ,1 , ,} - the hyper-real numbers R*, ranging from 0 to n and 0 to n;
0 n, C n;
0 < n< 0;
0 < n< C
R**{0, , ,1 , ,} - the ambulating hyper-real numbers R**,
ranging from 0 to n and 0 to n;
0D {0c0e}- zero in the differentiated form is the range of all numbers ambulating the
entire continuum ranging from 0c to 0e.
0U {0e0c}- zero in the undifferentiated form is the range of all un-ordinals excluded
from the continuum with zero range.
C {{0e0c}, {0c0e}}- the continuum in the power set form is the differentiated and
undifferentiated forms of zero.
C {{0}, {0c0e}}
C {CeCc}- the compressed form of the continuum Cc is 0c0e and the expanded form
of the continuum Ce is 0e0c (since from {0} all numbers extend).
C [0,1]- the continuum has the complete product of zero for the set of un-ordinals and a
complex product of one for the set of ordinals.
C [0]- the continuum has a complete product of zero.
40

2.2- Compatibility of C3 with Non-Standard Analysis

C3 is compatible with Non-Standard Analysis in very specific ways. The C3 treatment of
infinitesimals and infinites accounts for hyper-reals consistently with the extension
principle, the transfer principle, the real statements, and LHopitals Rule with very
specific exceptions. C3 sets a cardinal continuum of infinites and infinitesimals in
corresponding reciprocal and algebraic relationships leading to a definition of 1/0 then
allowing for the determination of the Indeterminate Forms. These more complete
definitions of the role of infinites, infinitesimals, and zero clarify the ghosts of departed
quantities issues that surround x and dx in Differentiation and Integration in Calculus
by modifying the Standard Parts Method. The utility of C3 extends beyond the
Continuum Hypothesis to Infinitesimal Calculus and Non-Standard Analysis seamlessly.
2.3- Standard Parts Method in Differentiation
The Standard Parts Method appears to be a slide-of-hand method.
Solving for f(x), where y = x3, we find:
f(x) = y + y = ( x + x ) 3
= y + y = ( x + ) ( x + x ) ( x + x )
= y + y = ( x + x ) (x2 + 2x x + x2)
= y + y = x3 + 2x2x + x x2 + x2x + 2xx2 + x3
= y = -x3 +x3 + 2x2x + x x2 + x2x + 2xx2 + x3
= y = -x3 +x3 + 2x2x + x x2 + x2x + 2xx2 + x3

Using the Standard Parts Method, we would:

3x2 +

= 3x2
Taking the Standard Part of a finite hyper-real number such as 3xx, where 3xx is an
infinitesimal and where the Standard Part of an infinitesimal is 0, does not address the
issue of how we transition from an infinitesimal increment x to 0 and how this is done
without having to define 1/0 or allow for x = 0. In this way, the Standard Parts method

41

is more like a selective reasoning or slide-of-hand, moving right along, using an ignorethe-issue-at-hand type method. What is x and how do we reduce it to zero without
violating fundamental principles of arithmetic?- is the question that is not being
addressed by Non-Standard Analysis in its application of the Standard Parts Method with
Differentiation.
2.4- Standard Parts Method in Integration
In integration, a series of rectangles are used to approximate the area under a curve. The
width of these rectangles is reduced to smaller and smaller increments until they are
infinitesimally wide. Then an infinites series of infinitesimally wide rectangles are
summed together to give an exact value of area under the curve.

Two different sets of inequalities are used, an over estimate and an under estimate of A,
that, as the widths of the rectangles tends towards zero and the number of them tends
towards infinity. Then at the limit, the over and under estimate tend towards equaling the
same value; namely A.
Example:
Find the area from x = 0 to x = a for the curve y = x2.

Let a/n equal the width of n equally thin rectangles under the curve f(x). For some
intermediate rectangle r, as an over estimate:

42

The area of rectangle r equals the base times the height relative to the highest point of
rectangle r along f(x), which is:

As an underestimate:

The area of rectangle r equals the base times the height relative to the lowest point of
rectangle r along f(x), which is:

Setting these two different estimates for the area of rectangle r as inequalities in a single
equation, and using a series of rectangles to approximate the area under a curve, as the
number of rectangle in the series approaches infinity the width of the rectangles tends
towards zero trapping the value for the area between to equal limits.

43

Solving the summations of the two series for the over and under estimates, we find:

Substituting (n-1) from the second series for n from the first series, we get:

Substituting into the inequalities we get:

As n increases, the width of the rectangles gets smaller and as n approaches infinity, the
widths tend towards zero. Using the Standard Parts method, we get:

This is consistent, showing that the definite integral is equivalent with the anti-derivative,
however, it again gives no reasoning for how this is done without defining 1/0.

44

2.5- Failure of the Standard Parts Method

Not only does the Standard Parts Method not explain how it avoids defining 1/0 though
inadvertently using it, in this next example, it actually fails in defining the definite
integral when looked at properly. Something else is going on within the Standard Parts
method that the current definition of the process doesnt account for but is somehow dealt
with in its underlying application.

The upper region B symmetrically has the same area as A. The Riemann sum, being a
sum of a series of infinitesimally thin rectangles, has an infinitesimally small error with
area E. Hence, the area of A plus the area of B plus the area of E = b2. Each partition of E
has a base of dx and a height of dx where the last term may be smaller than dx.
0 area of E bdx
Solving for A:

45

Since dx tends towards zero, bdx tends towards zero too, and in this way, E, or the error,
is eliminated.

However, this comes at a price: what about xdx? Doesnt it zero out too? It could be
argued that xdx is different from bdx given that the x in xdx is a dummy variable used
representing the summation of a series of xs, but this only drives the point further.

Since bdx is infinitesimal, if dx is the width of each rectangle, and dx goes to zero, then
not only does the width of each rectangle goes to zero but so does the integral area.

Something has to be happening in the inner workings of the Standard Parts method in
order to yield the correct answer:

In examining these subtle problems with using the Standard Parts method in order to
resolve the issues of the infinitesimals x and dx in Differentiation and Integration, C3
offers a comprehensive solution to the problem at hand that preserves the usability of the
Standard Parts method and extends its utility into determining the Indeterminate Forms.

2.6- Determining the Indeterminate Forms

Indeterminate Forms exhibit ambulation. At first glace, some indeterminate forms lead to
conclusions such as 0/0, however, some can be evaluated by an alternative method using
LHpitals rule and give definite answers. This yielding of a range of answers is exactly
what we find in C3 as ambulation. Other Indeterminate Forms such as /, 00, 0, 1,
- , and 0, through the use of ambulation, can also be transformed into ambulating
determinate forms. Consequentially and as will be demonstrated, the Standard Parts

46

method and ambulation turn out to be two aspects of the same approach. Where taking
the standard parts allows for treating hyperreals algebraically, ambulation allows for the
precise definition of hyperreals allowing C3 to use them algebraically. Therefore, a closer
examination at the utility of ambulation in C3 for determining the indeterminate forms
will shed light on the C3 interpretation of the Standard Part method.
For the indeterminate form 0/0, let the differentiated forms of zero be used to determine
the range of values for 0/0.

Therefore, depending on the differentiated forms of zero, 0/0 has the continuum as a
range of answers with the exception of 0/0 in the undifferentiated form of zero, which has
only one answer: 0.

For the indeterminate form /, let equal , for any given . Hence, for any /, so
long as the in the numerator and the in the denominator are equal, / = 1.

Also, when / < 1 or / > 1, corresponding values can be determined (please see
definitions of the reciprocal relationships between infinites and infinitesimals) such as:

For the indeterminate form 00, let the differentiated forms of zero be used to determine
the range of values for 00.

Using these we can derive:

47

(see Appendix)
For the indeterminate form 1, since 10 = 1 and since zero exists at both ends of the
continuum, i.e. zero is the continuum, 1 = 1.

From this we get:

The indeterminate forms - and 0 are resolved by previously mentioned references

to the reciprocal relationships and algebraic treatments of infinites and infinitesimals in
C3 through the use of ambulation transforming them into determinate forms.

2.7- C3 and Differentiation

Returning to the issue regarding taking the standard parts as the final step in
Differentiation, we find:

3x2 +

= 3x2
If we let x = n, and given that n = , which is the initial increment and since n
subambulates to equal 0c, 3xx and x2 can be reduced to zero without any mystery and
x = 0c can happen without violating the rules of arithmetic with C3 cleaning up the
definition of the Standard Parts method. Let:

The total change in x, or the total subambulation of n, equals the sum of the final change
in x and the initial change in x.
48

Total change in x = Final change in x + Initial change in x

xt = xf + xi
Since the final change in x subambulates to zero, xf = - .

Please notice that in the C3 approach to Differentiation, it is the subambulation of the

infinitesimal that reduces x to zero, not just some arbitrary wave of the Standard Parts
hand.
The C3 approach to differentiation applies subambulation to the infinitesimal x taking
into consideration the differentiated form of zero 0c.

2.8- C3 and Integration

When applying the limit to the infinite Riemann of the series of partitions of sub-intervals
as a function of x, we end up with an infinite summation of infinitesimal increments.

Referring back to the C3 treatment of the binomial

, which yields an infinite
summation of infinitesimal increments that perambulates over a range, specifically when
treated as applied in 1.6 - 1.8:

49

The expanded additions of n equals one, where the number of partitions is inversely
proportional to the width of the partitions, and no error remains. Now we have a means of
legitimately eliminating area E without losing xdx in the process.
So for bdx:

Now, using perambulation to account for the Standard Parts method in deriving the
definite integral for the infinite Riemann sum, we find:

50

Since dx is a dummy variable like x in this case and since they both are place holders for
the summation of the partitions from 0 to b, given that the partitions are infinitesimally
thin approaching zero, taking into account the infinite number of partitions that are
proportional to the width of the partitions, as the infinitesimal width of a partition equals
0c the infinite number of partitions equals 0e.

Since 0c 0e = 1, the summation of dx, which is the expanded additions of n that

perambulates to equal one, preserves the function of x defining the definite integral.
Please notice that in the C3 approach to Integration, it is the perambulation of the
infinitesimal that increases the dummy dx status from zero to one.
Therefore, the C3 approach to Integration first applies subambulation to the dx times the
error, and second perambulation to the infinitesimal dx taking into consideration the
differentiated forms of zero, 0c and 0e.

51

Bibliography

Aczel, Amir D., The Mystery of the Aleph- Mathematics, the Kabbalah, and the Search for
Infinity, copyright 2000 by Amir D. Aczel, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, NY, 2000
Anton, Howard, Calculus with Analytic Geometry, 4th edition, Wiley & Sons, Inc.
New York, NY, 1990
Berlinski, David, A Tourof the Calculus, copyright 1995 by David Berlinski, Vintage Books
Edition, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, NY, 1997
Borowski, E.J. & Borwein, J.M., HarperCollins Dictionary of Mathematics, copyright 1991
by Borowski and Borwein, Harpercollins Publishers, New York, NY, 1991
Boyer, Carl B., The History of the Calculus and its Conceptual Development, copyright 1949
by Carl. B. Boyer, Dover Edition, New York NY, 1959
Crossley, J.N., et al., What is Mathematical Logic?, copyright 1972, Oxford University
Press, Dover edition, New York, NY, 1990
Goldstein, Rebecca, Incompleteness- the Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gdel, copyright 2005
by Rebecca Goldstein, Norton Paperback, New York NY, 2006
Gustafson & Frisk, College Algebra- 4th Edition, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, 1990
Pollard, Stephen, Philosophical Introduction to Set Theory, copyright 1990 University of
Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, 1990
Rucker, Rudy, Mind Tool- the Five Levels of Mathematical Reality, copyright 1987 by Rudy
Rucker, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1987

52